Affinity Publisher

[SrPx]

You people have a lot of patience! :D

 

Oki, it was so long that I indeed used a notepad txt to write it... I still have it around, didn't delete yet... But IMO is WAY too much text...Anyway, I evolve my thoughts in a per minute rate... that's why a summary from myself can add new or opposite conclusions, haha :D  .... there it goes (I had deleted it.. You've been warned ! :D  ) :

 

( incoming huge text wall )

----

I have purchased A. Designer without a single shadow of doubt. Will do so with Photo, and will do the same with A Publisher.  The reason for that is indeed related to what I believe a professional needs today, what is already available in several forms, and what seems to be lacking everywhere (at a reasonable price and able to "own" a licensed software copy) at least with the conditions I consider "professional", or better said, the specs one cannot make happen with all other the existing tools, out of the CC suite, of course. 

 

I am not a hobbyist (I am in the sense that I have a passion for making several forms of art since I was a little kid) , but a professional, I work in this and only this, making independent work, not for a company, but have spent most of my professional life working at companies as graphic designer, illustrator and game artist, now being a freelancer. At least to my knowledge and my own experience, we freelance artists and general graphic workers, or just indies, (I mean with indies people making independent projects from which they expect to build a business around, or at least, make it become a very nice part of their income) we do need to at least have the possibility of working with the market's specs/requirements needed, and the export to clients, applications, print, etc, that the market requires. This means: Being able for example to work in CMYK mode (not just able to send to print with a profile, blindly without screen(calibrated monitor) checking or a final proof test as much, like some comparable -and even so slightly more expensive- tools competitors) , export in a cmyk supporting format (psd, tiff, eps, etc), and with the ability to embed a large number of color profiles, as every print company seem to have its preferences, same as ICC profiles for RGB for other type of customers or print companies, and ability to perform image adjustments that allow to achieve an image/ file preparation reaching levels that can compete with professional outputs in other high end software applications.

 

There are of course issues, I don't deny it as I have been through all the beta forum posts flow specially for Photo, but besides this is completely normal in young applications compared to old legacy largely tested (but indeed less "professional") Serif's older tools, but I've come to the conclusion that most can be worked out with workarounds and graphic worker expertise (meanwhile they get progressively fixed! Patience is key here), and in the worst case (something that happens in  my very case) , these applications can be the final end step in a project: They provide this so key final project refine and export that so, so many other available software solutions do *not* provide. That is, I have NEVER been "one app only" guy in all my ten companies' experience. I can remember tons of cases. Sometimes, doing a fast landscape in Bryce would win by KO to going the slow path of modeling complex geometry in 3DS Max, create during many hours heavy texturing, and then do a slow Brazil or Final render (because of the complex scene!) (even if that's the best path possible among the two). Because maybe we had a freakin' afternoon for that single image. Or modeling with Wings3D (open source tool, can't render or animate and barely texture, but a freaking PROFESSIONAL ;) modeler) the main game character because organic modeling in a raw Max(no plugins) was by the times poorer and slower. Some days was forced to make full video promos with a cheapo video editor that happened to output professional results for the matter, despite Premiere was the mega tool for anything video. I so don't care a bit if I use my open source and some purchased tools in combination with affinity's, covering the weak points of one or the other.  Indeed, THAT is a professional route, at least, that saved the neck of a lot of professional projects in the past, meaning as professional that the big bosses were super pleased later on with our quality, it paid salaries during many years, and products did hit the shelves, like always, sometimes with great luck, some with less, but despite often not being made with the considered the best tool in town, the low sells in some cases where more a case of low promotion, distro politics, etc.

 

Still, about something mentioned, I would not agree calling more professional someone that is more "obedient" letting persons probably less trained in artistic matters (often, bosses) to decide in many aspects of the graphic production. Specially if the obedient folks are talented, as should be the opposite, the boss, and team should at least listen the skilled people to be able to produce something of real quality in their specific area. I mention it as I have let bosses impose their graphic criteria too much, during years, until the moment I realized letting them then do so was of course damaging my portfolio, but also damaging the whole company and its income. That is also part of being professional, requires being valiant at some points and ready to loose your job (never happened, tho!), and even all this said, IMO there are many different ways of being professional.

 

The issue mentioned above, of a publishing tool not being able to support 600 pages, yep, that is not professional for certain scope. But we are sadly used to CC and Autodesk suites. They tend to allow to be super professional in virtually any professional activity (at a cost, that's why a lot of people is here, I guess).  A software, for being considered pro, IMO, does not need to be able to function for every possible activity, but an specific range. That is, if allows to do for example gorgeous brochures, small publications but at an excellent quality, for me that is totally professional. Because there are many companies not producing 600 pages publications and still making truck loads of money with brochures, templates, and the like. I am a painter, an illustrator, meaning I work lately mostly on that. A. Photo, judging by its name, you could think is focused on photography editing mostly. Is that all the field in image editing? Absolutely not. They indeed include brushes (and I noticed the scope is a bit wider than just to serve for photo retouching) some tools for painting. Just compare it to the painting applications (or even PS in the latest iterations) like Corel Painter, Krita, or Art Rage has, and there it simply cannot compete, in its painting flexibility and feel. So, if can't output same variety in traditional media, is enough to say it is not professional? :o  That'd be extremely wrong, and I say it while is my darn main field now. Is a professional image editing software. You might have to combine it with an specialized traditional painting tool as much as you could and in some cases totally should combine Photoshop with an advanced batch editing software for large volume of files editing. 

 

That said, I understand that then, for certain workflows is not usable an application that has the limitation that does not allow you to make your own activity. That would be crazy for a company to purchase a publishing software that can't deal well with 600 pages if your every day work, or ocasional but important work is making a publication with 600 pages AND you totally need to decide one or another, haven't got money for both (in my experience, the more, the merrier, just no subscriptions, please, I want to BUY.). Saying though that because it can't do that is "not professional", imo, would be a stretch. I respect it as an opinion, but kindly and totally disagree. Is at most not as capable as say, Xpress or InDesign, but always that allows professional production in other areas , activities, and/or type of projects, it IS professional.

 

Another example: It could be also that wouldn't allow you to embed 3D  in your PDFs, neither export the document as web file able to give real time 3D preview in WebGL, and for some commercial activities, maybe that export being essential, but still, if it allows working in both RGB (sRGB, Adobe RGB...) and CMYK (using your required profiles) exporting your CMYK PDF/X-1a 2003 in whatever the printing company required profile (coated FOGRA39, US Web Coated Swop v2, etc.) that's still quite professional for me, for so, so many uses and cases, so essential and common to many print workflows. What is more, when you are into real life very complex projects, not even the big names cover all. There's were all my myths (we all have been an app fanboy/girl of some sort at some point) have fallen, as my plate of food was in high risk despite the company using the big names apps. In some cases, even reading all documentation, even the most obscure, asking support, etc, nothing solves stuff, because is a huge unsolved bug. Sometimes left there for YEARS, yep, in the big names apps. You are in the middle of a demo to be delivered next day, your super high end dominant software has a bug no one knows how to work around, but almost 9 times out of ten, you can discover a solution (that you are tempted even to publish and patent, lol) or, a lot of times, realize some other pro knows already as did hit the bug and has posted (maybe a month ago) a way to still do the job in some professionals forum.  

 

For these reasons, I don't suspect, I know AP, AD and surely A.Publisher once out will be fully professional, in what me and my colleagues of many places would consider as such. Probably CC and Autodesk's will be more capable for a certain time (or maybe for ever, that's not a prob), but that in a lot of cases wont refrain a lot of us to do professional work with Affinity's. (maybe for the 600 pages case (though that was said of an old serif tool, will see the Affinity's solution, is way too soon. And imo, one at a time, this way each product will be released better, imo), or long hours of very traditional like painting better done in combination with some other tools (Scribus(publishing), krita, etc)) but again, the term professional is earned already with many of the capabilities and heading these tools have, my 2c.

 

Edit: Heck, that ended up way longer than I wanted...! Apologies... (I don't expect now anyone to read it, hehe)

[Oval]

 

 

“there will be an InDesign equivalent called Affinity Publisher”, “Affinity is the new name in high quality, next-generation design apps for professionals”: This is why we don’t need a semipro APu. Hopefully Serif will not change their (corporate) wording.

 

Not a good idea if someone who has the talent to fly a passenger aircraft would fly one without knowing the rules. If someone with talent (and with or without a degree) would create a book without knowing the rules (especially of typography), he would not get a professional result. Yes, there are many ways to define a professional result if you don’t know the rules.

[R C-R]

 If someone with talent (and with or without a degree) would create a book without knowing the rules (especially of typography), he would not get a professional result.

There are no rules, only conventions.

[Oval]

There are no rules, only conventions.

Yes, for you. Wow, your eyes, your fingers, your perception system follows no rules!

[SrPx]

When I mean different ways of something being professional maybe I explained it badly. I mean, one app might not allow a certain volume of work, and still provide high quality in what it can do, and so still be professional for many niches. No mention done to typography or how (rules, method, etc) the work must be done. Anyway, IMO is like forgotten often the cost of these tools which Affinity sets. I know should not be the main criteria, but that's one thing, and another that in the complaints seems that this factor is systematically not taken in consideration.

 

Me I hope would be it getting to be an InDesign killer, lol, but real cases tend to show a difference between what can output a small team compared to the resources and power of a huge corporation. Also, marketing wording is always a bit hyped in absolutely any product on earth... I always read it as a declaration of intentions, at least in graphics/design related software...

[R C-R]

Yes, for you. Wow, your eyes, your fingers, your perception system follows no rules!

My fingers are not the same as yours. They almost certainly have a different range of motion, different "muscle memories," different ratios of length to girth, & so on. My color vision is likewise different in many respects from the "rule," which is just an empirically derived average anyway. The psychology & to some extent even the physiology of sense perception still isn't that well understood, but we know it involves many areas of the brain as well as the sense organs, is dependent on previous sense experience to correlate patterns, & what we loosely describe as our "state of mind" plays a large part in what we perceive.

 

This is why there are no rules for the creative process, only conventions. Almost all of them are based on some perceived cultural norm. For example, it should be obvious that the "rules" for typography for phonetic languages are not the same as for pictographic ones, or for languages that are read left to right, top to bottom vs. some other path. We all don't even turn the pages of a book in the same direction. Different cultures don't all attach the same significance to different colors or color combinations -- it is only by convention that yellow is associated with caution or green with go; "patriotic" colors vary enormously around the world; & even red sometimes symbolically represents blood & thus danger but in other contexts can represent the purity of the heart. In most cultures, objects define patterns but in a few it is the space between them that does.

 

Web "pages" often have less in common with the pages of modern books than ancient scrolls. Hypertext, markup languages, links, rendering engine differences, text substitutions, the several different conventions for "actual size," etc. have no counterpart in printed media, but it should be obvious that this changing the conventional ideas about what a book is or can be -- an "ebook" is just a different kind of book, one for which the "rules" for printed ones simply do not apply.

 

That's the tl;dr version. The short one is that the standards for "professional results" are & always will be subjective, based on conventions rather than some arbitrary set of rules.

[MikeW]

...The short one is that the standards for "professional results" are & always will be subjective, based on conventions rather than some arbitrary set of rules.

 

And I would add that part of maturing as a designer is knowing when to break with rules, conventions or whatever one wishes to call them.

[Alfred]

Different cultures don't all attach the same significance to different colors or color combinations -- it is only by convention that yellow is associated with caution or green with go; "patriotic" colors vary enormously around the world; & even red sometimes symbolically represents blood & thus danger but in other contexts can represent the purity of the heart.

 

I'm reminded of a documentary that the BBC broadcast a few years ago. Although the original programme is no longer available online, you can read a little about it on this Quora page. The YouTube video has been blocked on copyright grounds, but if you scroll down you can see a couple of screenshots which amply demonstrate cultural differences in colour perception.

[Oval]

My fingers are not the same as yours. They almost certainly have a different range of motion, different "muscle memories," different ratios of length to girth, & so on. My color vision is likewise different in many respects from the "rule," which is just an empirically derived average anyway. The psychology & to some extent even the physiology of sense perception still isn't that well understood, but we know it involves many areas of the brain as well as the sense organs, is dependent on previous sense experience to correlate patterns, & what we loosely describe as our "state of mind" plays a large part in what we perceive.

 

This is why there are no rules for the creative process, only conventions. Almost all of them are based on some perceived cultural norm. For example, it should be obvious that the "rules" for typography for phonetic languages are not the same as for pictographic ones, or for languages that are read left to right, top to bottom vs. some other path. We all don't even turn the pages of a book in the same direction. Different cultures don't all attach the same significance to different colors or color combinations -- it is only by convention that yellow is associated with caution or green with go; "patriotic" colors vary enormously around the world; & even red sometimes symbolically represents blood & thus danger but in other contexts can represent the purity of the heart. In most cultures, objects define patterns but in a few it is the space between them that does.

 

Of course we have different fingers. But there are too many examples of bad usability because rules like the maximum and minimum size of human fingers were ignored!

 

Our theme was not creativity but basic rules! Again: Very risky if you fly a passenger aircraft creatively, without knowing basic rules.

 

If you don’t care about the rules that exists in different cultures, you lose your target groups.

 

There are rules that are different in cultures. And there are cross-cultural design rules. For example ask for the most beautiful rectangle or think of optical illusions.

 

Bad justified texts with poor quality (poor legibility) exists because basic rules were ignored or unknown.

 

If someone says there are no rules and thinks typography on signs is the same on books, he will get bad results.